{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6962","number":"6962","name":"Roberta B","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-28T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-20T04:00Z","body":"I am grateful to HHS for opening up the opportunity for the public to share concerns about the lack of balanced consideration of scientific research in setting regulations around wireless radiation. I have read dozens of studies that point to possible health concerns around overexposure to non-ionizing radiation. The suffix \"non\" in \"non-ionizing\" is often used as if it automatically implied \"non-harmful\" but these terms are not synonymous. Like many people, I have had friends and relatives die of brain tumors after spending years with a mobile phone pressed against their head — but while I am convinced by this to use speaker phone, I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence and therefore only compelling to me. I will attach with my comment several studies I have read that document real physical effects of non-ionizing radiation on the human body; these studies are all peer-reviewed and published in respected medical journals. I recognize that the science is still being debated, but the people conducting these studies are credible, credentialed scientists with PhDs and medical doctorates in a variety of related sciences. Medical doctors, engineers, physicists, epidemiologists of world renown are all reporting that there are serious considerations to the health impacts of this technology. Most of us are not shouting \"Get a horse!\" at passing cars; we are shouting \"Get a catalytic converter!\" We know that cell phones are part of 21st century life, but that doesn't necessarily require putting cell towers on top of schools, for example, when we are learning that children's thinner skulls and developing brains make them more vulnerable to all forms of radiation. \nUntil government became involved and began regulating emissions from automobiles, car companies would have had us believe that toxic emissions were a necessary part of operating a vehicle, or that fumes you couldn't see or smell couldn't hurt you. Thank goodness all over the world government regulators called BS and forced car manufacturers to find a better way. 21st century cars may not be perfect, but they are less harmful to the environment and to human health than 20th century cars were. They found a compromise we can all live with. We have the opportunity to do the same with cell phone and cell tower radiation, if regulators choose to serve the greater good rather than serving industry.\nWe can't wait for all scientists to agree; as long as such a large number of studies are indicating cause for concern about impacts on human health and the environment, we should err on the side of caution. We should demand that industry dedicate some of its resources to developing phones that emit only as much radiation as is necessary to make a call. We should force industry to compete on safety as we did with the auto industry. And we should regulate where cell towers can be placed, with consideration to vulnerable populations, rather than rushing and \"streamlining\" the process in a way that seeks to cut local communities and stakeholders out of the process of approving towers that could be emitting dangerous levels of radiation.\nPersonally, I practice safe cell phone habits; I keep my phone on airplane mode at home, shut it off at night, and never press it against my head. These things are within my control and allow me to keep my exposure as low as reasonably achievable. I would appreciate support from regulating agencies in the form of forcing the big telecom companies to conform to reasonable emission standards on their products and consider local concerns when siting cell towers. Also, Health and Human Services could do a lot of good by informing and supporting the medical industry in validating that there are real health concerns, and that certain behaviors around wireless technology are recommended and supported by research. The telecom industry is not going to go bankrupt if HHS recommends safer cell phone habits or keeping towers off of schools. People will still buy and use cell phones, but maybe the cost of the health impacts will be shifted from paying for treatment to the phone companies paying a little toward prevention. Thank you for your consideration.","attachments":["https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6962/attachment_5.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6962/attachment_4.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6962/attachment_3.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6962/attachment_2.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6962/attachment_1.pdf"],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6962","tags":["cancer-tumors","child-development","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"9ba40d0de70cbf40dd1432250a5450df4c668244f7690ac7088f1802a718a268","slug":"cancer-tumors-comment-6962","classification":null,"forum_topics":["awaiting-review"],"primary_topic":"awaiting-review","forum_title":"I am grateful to HHS for opening up the opportunity for the public to share concerns about the lack of ba…"}